If a crazy angry customer walks into a store and carries on with the store clerk just because he's having a bad day, how does the store clerk react?
"Take your pissy attitude somewhere else", because now that clerk is getting wound up too. What does this have to do with anything? A lot. It's
human nature to lose all sympathy for people who can't keep their head on. As a society, we tend to show empathy and charity towards those whom we
know are having a bad day but do the opposite towards those who lose their cool. That's why it's a good rule of thumb not to get angry in court. My
point here is, we inherently know not to piss people off or else we're going to fall victim of our own doing. That's also why it's difficult
to take 'that first swing' when squaring off, you want to make sure you're not directly in the way of what's coming next.

So my question is this. Why are the cops pissing everyone off? They know the causation of their actions

This is unfortunate and frightening. One of my best friend’s wife is a cop in Baltimore. A fine lady, so again for the imbeciles who always jump to
conclusions and refuse to wait for the results of the investigation, as well the morons who lump all police in one basket are really clueless.

Before protests over Freddie Gray’s death turned chaotic, an unlikely alliance was born in Baltimore on Saturday: Rivals from the Bloods and the
Crips agreed to march side by side against police brutality.

Interesting, they decide to stand up to police brutality but they didn't have any issues with gang brutality, nor the numerous innocent children
killed by their own gangs, or black on black crimes within their community?

There's probably a few undercover paid informants stirring things up within the rival gangs. The FBI has been caught prodding people into action that
they normally wouldn't do in the past, what makes this any different?

Looting and rioting public businesses is one thing, all out war against officers of the law will invoke a heavy response.

Americans are pretty lazy and complacent, it sure is taking a lot of prodding from "someone" to get people up in arms. I smell an agenda with all
the police brutality videos surfacing recently. Police brutality isn't anything new, but the media's coverage of it sure is.

The media only shows us what they're told to show us. So, the question then becomes -- who is telling them to run police brutality stories?

Well I don't even know what to say - something had to break I suppose.
You keep kicking people and kicking them and kicking them - then someday they're going to hit back.
Armed gangs are going around killing people with impunity - they shoot, beat, suffocate, choke and murder in all manner of different ways.

Now another gang is saying that they're going to fight back against this gang.

It's a recipe for disaster and will end very badly but I think we all knew it would happen one day.

originally posted by: BlueJacket
Shux I guess all the phone tapping is worth continuing, not that extending the Patriot Act to 2020 is on the docket or anything.
a reply to: SkepticOverlord

If the spying by government were justifiable we wouldn't even be at this juncture.
They could have cut the head off of many snakes long before now but have chosen not to.
This is what you get when criminal elements are the ones running government.
They can pick and choose who to catch and who to allow to run free.

Stand with Crips and Bloods? No. Nice try though. However if it's from peaceful motivations and results in a lasting peace that stops their
communities from being victimized by gangs and police alike... I'd have no problem with that.

The sheer volume of information the NSA collects (and may or may not share with other agencies) is insane. Predictive software can only do so much.

The NSA runs into the "False Positive Paradox" when it comes to the information it collects. I wanted to bring this up to that fellow that left the
NSA, but I digress...

Anyway, here's an example of the false positive paradox:

Say you have a new disease, called Super-AIDS. Only one in a million people gets Super-AIDS. You develop a test for Super-AIDS that's 99 percent
accurate. I mean, 99 percent of the time, it gives the correct result -- true if the subject is infected, and false if the subject is healthy. You
give the test to a million people.

One in a million people have Super-AIDS. One in a hundred people that you test will generate a "false positive" -- the test will say he has
Super-AIDS even though he doesn't. That's what "99 percent accurate" means: one percent wrong. What's one percent of one million? 1,000,000/100 =
10,000 One in a million people has Super-AIDS. If you test a million random people, you'll probably only find one case of real Super-AIDS. But your
test won't identify one person as having Super-AIDS. It will identify 10,000 people as having it. Your 99 percent accurate test will perform with
99.99 percent inaccuracy.

That's the paradox of the false positive. When you try to find something really rare, your test's accuracy has to match the rarity of the thing
you're looking for. If you're trying to point at a single pixel on your screen, a sharp pencil is a good pointer: the pencil-tip is a lot smaller
(more accurate) than the pixels. But a pencil-tip is no good at pointing at a single atom in your screen. For that, you need a pointer -- a test --
that's one atom wide or less at the tip.

Terrorists are really rare. In a city of twenty million like New York, there might be one or two terrorists, maybe up to ten. 10/20,000,000 = 0.00005
percent, one twenty-thousandth of a percent. That's pretty rare. Now, say you have software that can sift through all the bank-records, or toll-pass
records, or public transit records, or phone-call records in the city and catch terrorists 99 percent of the time. In a pool of twenty million people,
a 99 percent accurate test will identify two hundred thousand people as being terrorists. But only ten of them are terrorists. To catch ten bad guys,
you have to investigate two hundred thousand innocent people.

The above is a hypothetical situation, but it applies to NSA software that automatically lights up on certain keywords and tries to predict
terrorist/criminal behavior.

The only good the "spy state" data collection is good for right now is retroactive analysis. After a crime is committed, or a suspect is already
identified, information can be used. There is just to much raw data to accurately predict who is a suspect and who isn't.

Bad news. I think it will play out like this though. Maybe one or two cops get killed within the next two weeks or so, some gang ties but will be
hard pressed to completely attach it to this particular threat.

Again to some of the previous posters in this thread, why don't they protest this or that, etc. Let's not complicate things. If there were more
community involvement by the police and more trust for the police in general then this issue wouldn't have even come up.

In Vegas, where I live, there isn't a big undercurrent of police corruption or violence. There is a lot of police involvement in the community and
the police are perceived as diversified and fair. You get some issues, but when you do, because of all the effort the police have put into the
community, they get cut a little slack, there is a little good will already built up.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
There's probably a few undercover paid informants stirring things up within the rival gangs. The FBI has been caught prodding people into action that
they normally wouldn't do in the past, what makes this any different?

I just added this to the opening post…

Max Blumenthal, Senior Writer for Alernet.org is calling BS on the "credible threat."

I live in the area and while things have been tense, it has not been as out of control as it has been portrayed. As is often the case, it is a few bad
actors that have made the headlines. The great majority of the protestors and police handled themselves well.

For a little perspective, I think the hockey riots in Vancouver a few years back were much more damaging than what occurred on Saturday night.

The media only shows us what they're told to show us. So, the question then becomes -- who is telling them to run police brutality stories?

I feel exactly the same and I find the same question of great importance. The media without doubt is fuelling a race riot by the unequal coverage of
police brutality on all races, but focusing only on one race and making it a racial issue.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.